Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

Karan M wrote:Looks like the base design had issues and the Group Captain who is acknowledged as being an excellent pilot otherwise, hence had a mishap. Also, why don't we get more C-130 Js? Are we going to wait till they too are out of production?

These are very expensive Birds and when 2 have crashed in such a short time, do you want to throw good money over bad?

Karan M wrote:Looks like the base design had issues and the Group Captain who is acknowledged as being an excellent pilot otherwise, hence had a mishap. Also, why don't we get more C-130 Js? Are we going to wait till they too are out of production?

These are very expensive Birds and when 2 have crashed in such a short time, do you want to throw good money over bad?

The second case is clearly not a design issue with the bird, so why try to spin it that way?? I accept that they are costly but the cost is due to their superlative capabilities which is a good value addition to the capabilities of the IAF and hence good investment..

Karan M wrote:Looks like the base design had issues and the Group Captain who is acknowledged as being an excellent pilot otherwise, hence had a mishap. Also, why don't we get more C-130 Js? Are we going to wait till they too are out of production?

Austin wrote:Not sure of IL-76 but An-32 must be routinely doing that much before C-130 entered service it was our workhorse

I think that the C-130 was probably attempting something new and different - which I believe also contributed to the earlier accident. We bought them for the new capability and the fact that a senior officer was on both flights suggests that he was leading from the front

So help me understand something in the context of the C-17 Globemaster line has shut down.

What happens when natural attrition causes numbers of C-17s to drop in various air forces.

So my question is from two angles.

1. Angle of manufacturer.

Its the Year 2027 ADRoyal Australia has two less aircraft (due to whatever reason, these airframes can't fly)Indian Air Force has three lessRoyal New Zealand wants to buy two aircraftQatar wants to buy threeUSAF is minus nine aircraft and wants two more squadrons.

Is there a time and number (demand) when the OEM will seek to reopen the lineHas that mfg_ing line been repurposed for something else Does anyone know how this works usually and if Boeing made any statement about this (when they were closing down the line)

2. Angle of OperatorIts the Year 2027 ADWe have three less C-17sWe also have 4 less IL-76 and many more IL-76 rapidly showing age and heavy life capability is dropping fast.

Question 2AWhat do we do because Boeing says the demand for more C-17 has not reached a minimum viable number, i.e they need a minimum demand of 100 aircraft before they will start manufacturing again Meanwhile Russian Il-76 line is also not humming and has been quiet for many years

Question 2BWhat do we do because Boeing says they will never open the C-17 line ever. They are now in planning and design phase for C-18. The son of C-17 and this aircraft is 20 years away. Meanwhile Russian Il-76 line is also not humming and has been quiet for many years

The Govt of India is still struggling to make the MTA fly off the whiteboard and the C-130 cannot perform the role of C-17s in terms of equipment haulage.

Khalsa wrote:So help me understand something in the context of the C-17 Globemaster line has shut down.

What happens when natural attrition causes numbers of C-17s to drop in various air forces.

So my question is from two angles.

1. Angle of manufacturer.

Its the Year 2027 ADRoyal Australia has two less aircraft (due to whatever reason, these airframes can't fly)Indian Air Force has three lessRoyal New Zealand wants to buy two aircraftQatar wants to buy threeUSAF is minus nine aircraft and wants two more squadrons.

Is there a time and number (demand) when the OEM will seek to reopen the lineHas that mfg_ing line been repurposed for something else Does anyone know how this works usually and if Boeing made any statement about this (when they were closing down the line)

2. Angle of OperatorIts the Year 2027 ADWe have three less C-17sWe also have 4 less IL-76 and many more IL-76 rapidly showing age and heavy life capability is dropping fast.

Question 2AWhat do we do because Boeing says the demand for more C-17 has not reached a minimum viable number, i.e they need a minimum demand of 100 aircraft before they will start manufacturing again Meanwhile Russian Il-76 line is also not humming and has been quiet for many years

Question 2BWhat do we do because Boeing says they will never open the C-17 line ever. They are now in planning and design phase for C-18. The son of C-17 and this aircraft is 20 years away. Meanwhile Russian Il-76 line is also not humming and has been quiet for many years

The Govt of India is still struggling to make the MTA fly off the whiteboard and the C-130 cannot perform the role of C-17s in terms of equipment haulage.

Thoughts Folks ?

wasn't there a report of a tie up by reliance with Ukraine for a MTA ..maybe this is what they are targeting !

Hull losses cannot be replaced unless you have spare ones in the boneyard. But spare parts manufacturing continues as long as it makes economic sense to manufacture them.

And that is what I was saying in MII thread. Assembling a foreign fighter in India does not give much independence or know how. The parts for new aircraft and spares for the old aircraft all will continue to come from abroad.

There is no alternative but to put time, money and effort to build up local manufacturing capability and capacity.

Ha ha, and then we think building end of life F-16 is somehow a solution! Sorry, OT.

But, coming to the concern above, we have IL-76, which are also not in production despite all Russian claims. Even the new Phalcon frames are being pulled out from storage. And, what of all our Migs, Jags and M2Ks?

Having so many operators is actually a good reason why we know that parts will be available for long time. Being the only operator puts us in a difficult position.

“The EL/M 2083 will provide elevated view with the Russian Aerostats, thus enhancing the range for scanning threats. This will be linked to the SPYDER SR through the command center providing early warning thus facilitating Lock on Before Launch (LOBL) for the missile,” says Brigadier Rahul Bhonsle, a retired Indian Army brigadier and defense analyst.

Interesting but quite incomplete. Totally missed the advances in IAF ADS, which has undergone a sea change over the last decade. Not to mention game changing acquisitions like the Barak8, Akash, Spider and now, s400 Sam's. These will make very big difference in a two front war.

“On induction of attack helicopters by the Army, the IAF has maintained that, it has no objection to any internal restructuring within the Army as long as this does not pre-suppose the transfer of assets of the Air Force or impinge on the enunciated role of the IAF.

JT,The Il-76MD-90A is very much in full-scale production from a new plant in Russia unlike earlier when it was built in Uzbekistan. The IN has already ordered two more platforms for the Phalcon AWACS system and new IL-78 tankers are possible due to the v.high costs of Airbus aircraft.IL476-90 unit cost is around $60M. The new IIL-76-90s are supposed to have a full glass cockpit,smaller crew of 3,plus more powerful engines,paylaod,range and endurance,A few quotes.

Il-76MD-90AIt was announced in 2010 that the production of a modernized Il-76, the Il-76MD-90A (also known as project Il-476 during the design stage), would begin; a proposed new production line would be located in Aviastar's facility in Ulyanovsk, Russia, and be operated in cooperation with the Tashkent works.At that point, the construction of two Il-76MD-90A prototypes had begun at the Ulyanovsk facility.The 1st serial production Il-76MD-90A was rolled out at Aviastar's Ulyanovsk plant on 16 June 2014.[10] On 29 April 2015, it was reported that the Russian Air Force received the first Il-76MD-90A built at the Ulyanovsk plant "Aviastar-SP" from the 2012 contract for 39 aircraft.

“The newer machine differs in having greater payload, and longer range. State-of-the-art onboard systems allow for a wider spectrum of missions to be performed. The accuracy of parachute dropping and touchdown in adverse weather conditions is much improved. These and other qualities shall ease the pilot workload and enable the crew solve assigned tasks more efficiently, including in wartime.” With a gross weight of 463,000 pounds and four Perm Motors PS-90A76 turbofans, the Il-76MD-90A can transport a payload of 114,000 pounds for 2,700 nm.

Aviastar CEO Sergei Dementiev told AIN, “We are ready to produce up to 190 Ilyushins within the next fifteen years. To do that, we are refitting our final assembly facility, so that our annual production rate shall rise to 18 aircraft. The financial model we developed for the type runs through to 2030.”

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has canceled the tender worth USD2 billion for six A330 MRTT (Multi-Role Tanker Transport) aerial tankers, according to a source in the Indian Ministry of Defense (MoD).

“The MoD has terminated the program to acquire six A330 MRTT aerial tankers from the Airbus Defense and Space Company. We are planning to re-launch the relevant tender. The Ministry will consider other options, for instance, KC-767 by Boeing or Il-78M-90A by Ilyushin together with A330 MRTT,” the source said.

He pointed out that the Indian MoD had selected A330 MRTT over Il-78M (NATO reporting name: Midas) in 2012. “We suppose that the aforementioned aircraft could hardly be compared. A330 MRTT made its maiden flight in 2007, while Il-78M in 1988,” the source added.

The Indian MoD has revealed its interest in the acquisition of the Il-78M-90A aerial tankers developed by the Ilyushin Company (a subsidiary of the United Aircraft Corporation, OAK) on the base of the Il-76MD-90A heavy military transport aircraft. “The Il-78/Il-78M aircraft are rapidly ageing. I suppose that the newest Il-78M-90A aerial tanker meets the Indian MoD’s requirements to full extent.”

At the same time, Russia has been deeply upgrading the Il-78M aircraft to extend their service life by 15-20 years. The Ministry is also interested in such aerial tanker designated as Il-78M2.

“We are planning to consider the option of Il-78M-90A or Il-78M2 acquisition. These planes are supposed to have the best cost-effectiveness ratio. The Indian Air Force (IAF) operates several Il-78MKI tankers delivered in 2003-2006 that could be upgraded to the Il-78M2 level,” the source said.

However, the Russian option will be reviewed on a regular basis. “The MoD is re-launching the tender in order to supply the IAF with the state-of-the-art aerial tankers, not to acquire Russian aircraft,” he said.

The IAF operates six Il-78MKI aerial tankers delivered by Russia. The planes have been issued to the 78th squadron. According to open sources, only two aerial tankers are in flyaway condition. Four remaining aircraft are grounded due to the lack of spare parts.

The Il-78M-90A aerial tanker is developed by the Ilyushin Company. The specifications of the aircraft are classified.

The Il-78M aerial tanker was developed in the 1980s. It has a maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of 210 t, a maximum speed of 830 km/h, a cruise speed of 750 km/h, an operational range of 4,000 km, and a service ceiling of 11,230 m.s

PS:We had 272 MKIs ordered with around 250 reportedly delivered. Then there were reports about another 42 being ordered If you add 272 and 42 you get the magic fig of 314. That is a huge no. of MKIs and when all are upgraded to Super Sukhoi std.,capable of carrying BMos,BMos-M (in future) and LR AAMs,a very potent strike force. If the IAF allow the IN to take over most of the A&N theatre duties with their MIG-29Ks,etc.,they could relocate at least one more sqd. of MKIs to the Chinese front.